Not necessarily. It can bring out the worse.
Let's say you are stressing a machine beyond its limit. The risks are specified in the manual but you still do it. The resulting mechanical damage can't be blamed on the manufacturer.
Most people I know complain that they don't see enough of their friends due to increasing family commitments, but I'm spending most of my working time in the office having fun with my best friends. It's absolutely great and all the shared experiences also nurture the friendship.
I guess it all boils down to being really really honest about your assessment of each other's character. I couldn't have done it with most of my other friends. We also wrote out rules up front about all kinds of possible issues and determined who would arbitrate, so that we would have clarity before everyone is entrenched in a POV that coincides with their interest.
And our #1 rule is: if anything bothers you, you have to be explicit about it or accept your grievances will be ignored.
I have a few theories for why it didn't work. I think it comes down to an expectation that, as a friend, normal work rules do not apply. This friend thought they could work on whatever was interesting (rather than what their job called for), and could flake or complain as a friend.
Perhaps a more domineering personality than myself could crack-the-whip and force a person into their role, but then what's the point of the person being a friend? And is that a good use of a founder's time and energy? Arguing with and controlling a friend/employee? Nope.
I have had much better luck hiring people I don't know and becoming their friend through work.
This is true enough, but it need not be 'startup pressure' that reveals character. Many life situations can apply the same or greater quantum of pressure. So if you are going to do stressful startups with a friend, see if you have gone through hell before and come out on the other side still friends.
Tangentially life crises are very revealing of who your true friends are. Likewise romantic partners. When you are going through hell, just look around to see who is still there, and who ran for the hills.
I would also argue that starting with a distant family member is also not ideal.
We get a lot of advice (e.g. pg) to start a company with friends, but we also get a lot of comments one way or the other, but without personal experience in both.
Can someone who have been on both sides talk about it? I certainly have not been on both sides.
https://www.gimletmedia.com/startup/15-married-to-your-busin...
I started a startup with my best friend whom I knew for several years. The startup succeeded (kind of, we got acqui-hired by BigTech) but the friendship turned into a deep alienation in the process.
Startup pressure can bring out the true character of a person. The problem though is that you may not know the true character of someone until startup pressure is applied -- even if that someone is your best friend.
I'd actually argue for not starting your startup with a good friend. Friendship bias works against you when your cofounder turns against you under pressure. Instead choose a co-founder that you know professionally and that you have a good gut feeling about.
The problem of the story presented is not that he didn't start the company with someone he knew better, it's that apparently no agreements existed that prevented $ANTISOCIAL_COFOUNDER_BEHAVIOR from happening. I'm certainly guilty of that as well. The resources spent on setting up those agreements are always worth it. Also not a shame at all to bring in lawyers at this stage.
It is super common to divide shares generously the first day of the startup, it's like marrying a girl the first day you know her. Isn't it creepy?
It's common to divide 50/50, but with a vesting schedule. If co-founder shows $ANTISOCIAL_COFOUNDER_BEHAVIOR despite agreements made you may kick him/her out and will only lose shares that vested.